Lunatic Bureaucrats take away unemployment benefits from entrepreneur

[shemp]

This is what happens in NY state if you get a novel idea for your job search:

BUFFALO, New York - Working for free can get pretty expensive. Just ask John Bothe. The out-of-work announcer bought some radio time on a Buffalo, New York, station to do a Saturday sports show. He figured it would give him some exposure and might lead to a fulltime job. Now, the state labor department says the unpaid gig counts as a job and disqualifies him for unemployment benefits. The state also wants Bothe to pay back more than $600 in benefits he's already collected. He's appealing the decision.

source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/10/national/main536134.shtml

[Tmy]

GOOD!!! Since when is unemployment supposed to be used to bankroll someones radio show. Sounds like this guys doing OK if he can buy up radio slots.

Whats next, welfare mom using her check to record a demo?

[shemp]

Originally posted by Tmy
GOOD!!! Since when is unemployment supposed to be used to bankroll someones radio show. Sounds like this guys doing OK if he can buy up radio slots.

Whats next, welfare mom using her check to record a demo?

In the U.S., unemployment benefits are an insurance program paid for by workers through their employers. They are not a welfare program. If you bought a life-insurance policy on someone, they died, and the insurer didn't pay up because they thought you already had too much money, what would you say? Well, it's the same thing. It's not an "entitlement," he PAID for it and he deserves it.

[CapelDodger]

From shemp:
In the U.S., unemployment benefits are an insurance program paid for by workers through their employers
Insurance policies generally only pay out under certain conditions. You wouldn't expect to claim on health insurance if you weren't ill. If this guy doesn't fit the conditions for unemployment insurance, that's that. The rules have, presumably, been established by elected governments. Those governments might have been elected on the understanding that they were going to clamp down on the unemployed. Maybe you should have been watching.

Perhaps the reason this condition was introduced was to catch out unemployed people who were doing voluntary work. Much the same was done in the UK during the Thatcher years.

[Tmy]

Semantics, its still welfare cause we all get roped into paying. Its not optional. I pay taxes too so I PAY into welfare, so its as much as an insurance policy.

[Malachi151]

Unemployment is certianly not welfare and its somethgin that everyone benefits from if you use it or not.

How would you like to be a landlord, and then every time one of your tennents get's fired they can no longer pay rent and you have to kick them out, instead of them being able to pay rent for a few months while they look for a job. And then that homeless guy can't pay/her bills, has to file bankrupsy, stops buying things, becomes homelss, etc, etc, and poverty explodes. That's exactly what it WAS like before unemployment, or hadn't you heard?

And to that the obvious fact that it IS insurance that we all pay for and its obious that you deserve to draw it. You legally have to pay for car insurance too, do you think that people should not be able to file car insurance claims either?

The man was PAYING to try and fnd a job, its no different than if he paid to take out an ad with an employment agency to find a job. I'm sure this will be overturned anyway, onbviously his gig was not a job, it was an attempt to find a job, and that is exactly what unemployment is there for, to help you find a job.

That was possibly the best use of his money, instead of wasting it on beer and crap like probably many people do he used it to try and advance his career, thats exactly whate EVERYONE should be doing. The guy is a mdel for people on unemployment and should be commended.

[CapelDodger]

From Tmy:
Semantics
You talking to me?
... its still welfare cause we all get roped into paying. Its not optional. I pay taxes too so I PAY into welfare, so its as much as an insurance policy.
Well yes ... my post was partly about insurance policies and the fact that they normally have conditions attached before you can claim on them. The conditions attached to unemployment insurance are the business of your elected government.

Going back to the thread title, would you like these Lunatic Bureaucrats to have more discretion in how they apply the rules? If not then really you can have no complaint against them, your complaint should be directed to the governments responsible for the rules. If you do then get ready for the "Lunatic Bureaucrat pays out to layabout loser brother-in-law" threads.

[Tmy]

Its interesting how people will draw such a bold line between welfare and unemployment. I guess its cause they want to justify their particpation (or possible future participation) in the realm of unemployment but at the same time retain their distain and indignation of those on welfare.

What is welfare other than the next government saftey net after unemployment.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its interesting how people will draw such a bold line between welfare and unemployment. I guess its cause they want to justify their particpation (or possible future participation) in the realm of unemployment but at the same time retain their distain and indignation of those on welfare.

What is welfare other than the next government saftey net after unemployment.

So you're saying that people should not have an option to pay for insurance to protect them if they are layed off?

What do you do for a living? I bet you're either a small-business owner who would love to pay his employees under the table and less than minimum wage, or a Joe Six-Pack Republican who gets his opinions from talk radio.

Either way, you are clearly an idiot.

It's one thing to be opposed to rampant welfare, but another thing entirely to say that working people should have no safety net at all, especially one they pay for.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Unemployment is certianly not welfare and its somethgin that everyone benefits from if you use it or not.

How would you like to be a landlord, and then every time one of your tennents get's fired they can no longer pay rent and you have to kick them out, instead of them being able to pay rent for a few months while they look for a job. And then that homeless guy can't pay/her bills, has to file bankrupsy, stops buying things, becomes homelss, etc, etc, and poverty explodes. That's exactly what it WAS like before unemployment, or hadn't you heard?

And to that the obvious fact that it IS insurance that we all pay for and its obious that you deserve to draw it. You legally have to pay for car insurance too, do you think that people should not be able to file car insurance claims either?

The man was PAYING to try and fnd a job, its no different than if he paid to take out an ad with an employment agency to find a job. I'm sure this will be overturned anyway, onbviously his gig was not a job, it was an attempt to find a job, and that is exactly what unemployment is there for, to help you find a job.

That was possibly the best use of his money, instead of wasting it on beer and crap like probably many people do he used it to try and advance his career, thats exactly whate EVERYONE should be doing. The guy is a mdel for people on unemployment and should be commended.

Thank you for seeing the point that these other dullards missed. This guy tried a novel way of finding a job, paid for it out of his pocket, and gets fecked by bureaucrats.

I suppose Tmy and the other cretins would prefer he had sat around doing nothing.

[CapelDodger]

I think I may have only a hazy idea of what Americans mean by "unemployment benefit" and "welfare". For me they are interchangeable terms.

[CapelDodger]

From shemp:
Thank you for seeing the point that these other dullards missed. This guy tried a novel way of finding a job, paid for it out of his pocket, and gets fecked by bureaucrats.
Again I would point out that it's the rules, not the bureaucrats, that are the problem. The bureaucrats apply the rules. If they had discretion there'd be even more problems. Lay off the poor bureaucrats. Some of my best friends, etc.

[Tmy]

Calm down Shemp. Im actually FOR unemployment and welfare.

My beef is wh people who abuse the systems, or those who crap on welfare and are OK wh unemploy... I might be even for this radio guy, Im not sure.

BUT if unemployment was truley insurance shouldnt people in high turnover industries (like radio) be paying higher "premiums".

[shemp]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I think I may have only a hazy idea of what Americans mean by "unemployment benefit" and "welfare". For me they are interchangeable terms.

In the US, "unemployment" is an insurance plan for workers paid for by workers. (Yes, I know that employers also put money into it in most states, but this is part of the overall employee compensation package, so it really is a product of the worker's labor.) When an employee gets laid off, the insurance pays benefits for a certain period. The unemployed person has to meet certain standards of job searching. There is NO indexing of the benefit to personal wealth (at least not in any state I know of), meaning that they cannot pay you less because you saved too much money while you were employed. They can cut off benefits if you don't meet certain requirements, which are determined by state laws. This insurance does NOT pay a worker who is fired for cause or who quits (unless, in some states, the worker can prove there is good cause to quit, such as physical threats or personal endangerment by the employer).

"Welfare" is a program paid for by taxpayers, which pays money to some people who do not work, depending upon their circumstances.

There is a BIG difference between the two, but some people either cannot see it, or choose not to see it.

I personally believe that unemployment insurance is a very good program, and necessary to the smooth running of a capitalist economy. Welfare, in some individual circumstances, is a necessary safety net, but in others is a terrible crutch that creates dependency.

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Perhaps the reason this condition was introduced was to catch out unemployed people who were doing voluntary work. Much the same was done in the UK during the Thatcher years.

Excuse me, but what's wrong with unemployed people doing volunteer work while they're trying to find a real job?

It would seem admirable to me, as long as they can show that they are in fact seeking a new job.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Tmy
Calm down Shemp. Im actually FOR unemployment and welfare.

My beef is wh people who abuse the systems, or those who crap on welfare and are OK wh unemploy... I might be even for this radio guy, Im not sure.

BUT if unemployment was truley insurance shouldnt people in high turnover industries (like radio) be paying higher "premiums".

Why? The amount paid is indexed to income, as are the benefits. Also, there is a certain period (usually 39 weeks or one year, depending on the state) one must work in order to claim benefits. If you're suggesting that radio station employees should pay more because they are more likely to get laid off, that is already taken care of by the work period requirement. If someone gets laid off sooner, then they have not worked long enough to qualify.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The man was PAYING to try and fnd a job, its no different than if he paid to take out an ad with an employment agency to find a job. I'm sure this will be overturned anyway, onbviously his gig was not a job, it was an attempt to find a job, and that is exactly what unemployment is there for, to help you find a job.

That was possibly the best use of his money, instead of wasting it on beer and crap like probably many people do he used it to try and advance his career, thats exactly whate EVERYONE should be doing. The guy is a mdel for people on unemployment and should be commended.

Well, in this case I agree.

He's a radio announcer, getting his voice out to employers is what he needs to do. In NJ when AT&T and HP tossed us both out, we were both elligible for NJUI as long as we were looking for a job or had accepted an offer that started in the reasonable future. They would pay for some level of working on resumes, etc, as well as for classes to enable your employment, so what EVER was the problem here?

And, he keeps busy and keeps his hand in.

Goodness, what is the problem, anyhow?

[shemp]

Originally posted by jj


Excuse me, but what's wrong with unemployed people doing volunteer work while they're trying to find a real job?

It would seem admirable to me, as long as they can show that they are in fact seeking a new job.

There shouldn't be anything wrong. Perhaps bureaucrats have misconstrued the law and misapplied it. Hopefully, the appeals commission will see differently.

One angle I haven't considered here, which I just thought of, is whether we have all the information. I wonder if there was any advertising time sold during the time he was on air, and who pocketed the revenue. Maybe we need more information on this.

[CapelDodger]

Thank you shemp. That is pretty much the same as our system, where you can claim unemploment benefit for six months if you have enough contributions and then there's Income Support (or whatever it's called these days), which is means-tested and corresponds to "welfare". It's all called "the dole. And the people who get it/ don't get it blame the bureaucrats as well. I feel for them; as I say, some of my best friends ... They're only doing their jobs, and if occasionally they enjoy it, who'd deny them that?

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Again I would point out that it's the rules, not the bureaucrats, that are the problem. The bureaucrats apply the rules. If they had discretion there'd be even more problems. Lay off the poor bureaucrats. Some of my best friends, etc.

IS it the rules? Or is it somebody trying to overreach like the Social Serickety people did some time ago, making people hire laywers in order to get benefits that they obviously were due?

My mom had that happen to her, they gave her benefits under her husband's employment because she was married to him, and refused to give them according to her own employment, because she was already covered by his "account" never mind HER account got her a few dollars more every month.

After about 3 years, somebody else with more assets to use made them change the behavior and pay everyone 3 months back differences, too. Not 3 years, mind you, 3 months. Now, your average 80 year old religious lady is not about to question the government, nosirree, and I'm sure they were counting on it, too. She did, though, keep in the "appeal" forms, but only because I paid for the postage (sheesh).

When questioned why they did this, the answer was (literally) "because we can, you can always hire a laywer for your mom and then we'll give her the other 12 bucks"... (Btw, I don't think it was $12, either, it was a fairly insignificant amount, UNLESS you live on social security in an economicly depressed area, that is.)

So, is it the rules or not? Do we have somebody trying to make a point or a name for themselves here?

[shemp]

I guess I get a little hot under the collar about this because of my personal experience. I've had to collect unemployment twice in my life, and my wife is presently collecting. During one period a few years ago, I would have lost my house without it.

[shemp]

jj, you're putting CapelDodgers' words in my mouth. :D

[jj]

Originally posted by shemp
jj, you're putting CapelDodgers' words in my mouth. :D '


YIKES!
That's how it came out when I hit "quote".

Fixing now...

[Malachi151]

I mean gees, the guy could have sat at home and picked his nose and collected money, but he goes out and tries to take initiative and find a quality jpb that he wants and he's denied unemployment, that obviously makes no sense.

As I said I bet this gets overturned in the courts.

Besides you can take temporary work or part time work and still collect a less amount of unemployment.

As for the value of unemployment, all you have to do is look at the American economy before the New Deal. Asside from two gold booms, one in the late 1800s and one in the 1920s, back when gold WAS money, the US economy sucked and poverty was rampant. The only way people survived was that 4/5ths of the population were farmers and 20% of the population in the South were slaves.

Get rid of things like unemployment and welfare and the entire country would plunge into povety again like during the depression of the 1930s actually probably worse.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The man was PAYING to try and fnd a job, its no different than if he paid to take out an ad with an employment agency to find a job. I'm sure this will be overturned anyway, onbviously his gig was not a job, it was an attempt to find a job, and that is exactly what unemployment is there for, to help you find a job.

That was possibly the best use of his money, instead of wasting it on beer and crap like probably many people do he used it to try and advance his career, thats exactly whate EVERYONE should be doing. The guy is a mdel for people on unemployment and should be commended.
Holy crap, I actually agree w/ Malachi on something! The White Sox and Cubs are in 1st place this late in the season... I'm scared folks. :wink:

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat

Holy crap, I actually agree w/ Malachi on something! The White Sox and Cubs are in 1st place this late in the season... I'm scared folks. :wink:

No! Look out! It's the one horseman and three pedestrians of the apocolypse!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shemp


Why? The amount paid is indexed to income, as are the benefits. Also, there is a certain period (usually 39 weeks or one year, depending on the state) one must work in order to claim benefits. If you're suggesting that radio station employees should pay more because they are more likely to get laid off, that is already taken care of by the work period requirement. If someone gets laid off sooner, then they have not worked long enough to qualify.

Yeah but they are still more likely to USE unemployment. Its insurance not a debit account.


Y'know welfare also has limits and requirements. Theyve really changed the process so its not as much as a dependency as you would think.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
BUT if unemployment was truley insurance shouldnt people in high turnover industries (like radio) be paying higher "premiums". They do. Employers' premiums are based in part on the amount of benefits received by workers after leaving their employ. Often, employers fight the granting of benefits to former employees, because it's going to raise their rates. This is most effectively accomplished by making the claim that the employee was fired for misconduct.

Maybe here, the former employer has raised the issue, and is misleading the agency as to the nature of his current activities, trying to get out of liability for his benefits. Maybe the appeal will be successful. Who know? We don't.

My wife is an employment law judge, so my argument has the added logical support of being based on authority (by proximity).

[Silicon]

You pay into unemployment, you worked for it, you earned it, you deserve it when you get layed off. As the Republicans might say "It's your money." That money doesn't belong to the state.

I work in entertainment. What this guy did was the Radio version of using his money to create a resume.

[Tmy]

One of our resident righties (i forget who) posted a thread how he volunteered for a layoff so he could suck up some unemployment and go back to school. Lots of people thought that was Ok cause he "paid into unemplyment"..

Bullshiznit!! If i purposley total my car to collect the insurance is that OK since "its my money" that I paid to insurance.

[Silicon]

You're not making any sense TMY.


Fallacy: False analogy.


Totalling a car isn't the same as getting laid off.

At that person's work SOMEBODY was going to get laid off. Voluntary separation packages ARE layoffs. He took the voluntary separation package. He wanted to go back to school, so he was the guy they laid off.



In your bullshiznit car analogy, it's not like some car HAS to be totalled, so it might as well be yours! You created a false analogy. You also seem to think that all insurance works the same way.

In a layoff, whoever is getting layed off gets their unemployment. Just because the layoff is voluntary or incentivized by the company, doesn't change the terms of unemployment insurance. If I satisfy the terms of the insurance, I better the hell get paid my money.

It is NOT the same as your crappy analogy to automobile insurance fraud.

[CapelDodger]

From jj:
IS it the rules? Or is it somebody trying to overreach like the Social Serickety people did some time ago, making people hire laywers in order to get benefits that they obviously were due?
That's an appalling story. I may have been assuming that the US is more like the UK than it actually is. Of course, I've long known we're not as hag-ridden by lawyers over here, but this sounds like a lawyers' job-creation scheme. Not to mention immoral. You guys need a revolution.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
One of our resident righties (i forget who) posted a thread how he volunteered for a layoff so he could suck up some unemployment and go back to school. Lots of people thought that was Ok cause he "paid into unemplyment".. It's OK for him to volunteer to be the one to take the bullet, and collect unemployment after he's fired, but he isn't eligible for benefits if he's going back to school. He has to be looking for a new job, and winning and able to take one if it's offered.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
It's OK for him to volunteer to be the one to take the bullet, and collect unemployment after he's fired, but he isn't eligible for benefits if he's going back to school. He has to be looking for a new job, and winning and able to take one if it's offered.

I don't know the actual situation of this guy, but can't you:

Get unemployment benefits while you look for a new part-time job to support you better while you go to school?

(Call me silly, but I don't know anyone who can live off their unemployment benefit long enough to attend any school, unless it's TRAFFIC SCHOOL!)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Silicon


I don't know the actual situation of this guy, but can't you:

Get unemployment benefits while you look for a new part-time job to support you better while you go to school?

(Call me silly, but I don't know anyone who can live off their unemployment benefit long enough to attend any school, unless it's TRAFFIC SCHOOL!)

His GI Bill is fronting the school costs.

I think my auto example is closer than you think. Unemployment is to be used during the misfortune of losings one job. You dont get unemployment if you quite. taking a voluntary layoff is tantamount to quitting. he didnt have to lose his job, he chose too. (although I fully recognize the social benefit of accepting a layoff)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tmy

he didnt have to lose his job, he chose too.

So he gets the money that the other guy would have gotten.

Just because you give the employees the ability to vote themselves off the island, doesn't change the fact that somebody had to go, and whoever it is gets paid.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Silicon
I don't know the actual situation of this guy, but can't you:

Get unemployment benefits while you look for a new part-time job to support you better while you go to school?Sure but the situation presented implied thet there would be some financial incentive for this guy to lose his job. There doesn't appear to be. You can look for a part time job while employed, and you'll make more than the unemployment benefits while you're at it.

At least, that's the way I understand it. When I get a chance, I'll run these scenarios by The Judge.

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From jj:

That's an appalling story. I may have been assuming that the US is more like the UK than it actually is. Of course, I've long known we're not as hag-ridden by lawyers over here, but this sounds like a lawyers' job-creation scheme. Not to mention immoral. You guys need a revolution.

It was, I think, quite cynically intended because the difference in money was small, and wasn't worth most of the people who got it's effort.

It was part of a different president's administration, you know, a thousand flames of meanness?